250 ÏOKS 8ÀLT ON BD, 8CH00NEB BAKBASA, V. LATIMEB. 219 �cise it," on the part of the owïier of the vessel, who stands ready, sabject only to the rights of the government, to retake the goods for the enforcement of his lien. And the service of the monition, such as the situation of the goods permits, especially at the suit of a party having this right over them, is sufficient, it seems to me, to give the court jurisdiction. By invoking the power of the court to enforce his claim, the libellant at least puts it in the power of the marshal to assert that control over the goods which he himaelf now possesses. Ordinarily, indeed, a sale of property by an admiraity court îs a sale free from ail claims and interests whatever ; but not necessarily so, if the court has acquired jurisdiction, and there be some interest which, for cause, is not to be eut oflf by the sale. I see no diffîculty in selling this cargo, subject to the claims of the United States, if the seizure was sufQcient to give jurisdiction. The purchaser may then pay the duties and obtain possession of the goods. �The case of Taylor v. Carryl, 20 How. 583, is referred to as an authority adverse to the jurisdiction. It is not to be denied that there are expressions, in the opinion of the court in that case which make against the jurisdiction, but no ques- tion arises here, as in that case, of a possible conflict between courts of different jurisdictions. Subsequent decisions appear to limit somewhat the application of that case, and I do not think it is controlling against the jurisdiction in the present case. See The Reindeer, 2 Wall. 402; Buck v. Colbatk, 3 Wall. 341; The Joslyn and The Midland, 9 Ben. 119. �It was, indeed, held in Harris v. Dennie, 3 Pet. 292, that the custody of the collector was such as excluded any attachment of the goods on mesne procese out of a state court ; that such an attachment, "being repugnant to the laws of the United States," was void. I do not think there is the same repug- nancy between that possession of the collector and the service of the monition by the marshal at the suit of the ship-owner» wbose right and qualified control over the goods, subordinate to the right and control of the govemment, the laws of con- gress reeogiuze andprotect; nor does the exercise of the juris- diction by this court over the goods, subject to the rights of ����
